I see the hysterical tendency among the users to dump him as LSI, as usual... (the evil type)Originally Posted by labcoat
I see the hysterical tendency among the users to dump him as LSI, as usual... (the evil type)
SLI was my first impression, although LSI makes more sense.he certainly VIs like one, that smile on the first pic looks very much Fe-devaluing
sensing+logical for sure
As I said, I think he's LSI, but I don't think all LSIs are "evil". IMO, unhealthy beta STs may unleash violence to support their ideas. On the other hand, Si egos tend to threaten but never use physical violence, unless when defending themselves.I see the hysterical tendency among the users to dump him as LSI, as usual... (the evil type)
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
some more info that I read in the papers:
people who knew him describe him as an introvert, almost shy, though very intelligent and articulate. He read a lot. Though he did not think things through a lot. He acted very politely and correct, always wore a tie.
Nothing points toward a certain type since there are some contradictions, but at this point I think he's ISTJ or INTJ.
...and evil. Otherwise, I would have thought that's the profile of Clark Kent!
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
SLI was my gut reaction to his pictures, but looking more closely I'm thinking LSE or LIE.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
He's either reacting in an out of control fashion (Si) or he's following someone else's idea to it's fruition (Se); Se, because his judgement is simplistic (anyone who sticks to a fundamentalist view without the evaluation of other views is only helping to create some sort of importance to that way than it actually exists) hence taking immediate action.
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
u smokin?
No, maritsa.
Don't get into it with me. He's clearly an ethical polr.No, maritsa.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It's your terrible descriptions of the functions I have a problem with.
Got it, but it's Jung who described Si types as being very reactive, not me.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Show me the quote and I'll show you how you botched it. And while you're at it cover the bit on Se.
Maritza is the reason that Jungian shit should remain esoteric.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Jungs definitions are different to the socionics onesGot it, but it's Jung who described Si types as being very reactive, not me.
Please make a sensible point, applying pure JCF directly to socionics is fraught with danger. A hobbyist is better off skipping straight to Augusta and forgetting Jung exists.Relativist fallacy.Jungs definitions are different to the socionics onesPlease adjust your wrongheadedness.
I agree with you from an analytical perspective, but in order to be practical there needs to be a static definition in this case Augusta wins because socionics is her baby. In the real world it's better to be consistent than 100% correct.
By typing, people are trying to use socionics practically and this is impossible if the fundamentals are dynamic.
This is true, but should we not then say Augusta's definitions/Model A is stable version 1.0 and if you are using a different definition then you should state that? Ahh if only everything in life could be version controlled.
I'm still planning on doing this. I haven't forgotten.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
My problem stems from the fact that the majority of people here are not professionals looking to add to and improve the theory of socionics. Treating socionics as a transient theory while appropriate in intellectual circles, is not appropriate for a hobbyist forum. This leads to people with conflicting definitions arguing as if they are talking about identical theory and derides useful discussion with endless circles and misinformation. The problem is the arguments aren't even productive it's a case of "I read this so this is right" rather than "I conducted a study and as a result I believe this description is more accurate".In any field of organized study—be it Psychology, Economics, or even Physics—it's routine practice to have many different theories and models in use alongside one another; there's absolutely nothing unusual about this (to borrow the version control analogy, we could say they constitute different forks or branches, as it were). Typically, professionals in these fields will fluidly operate between many different models of the same phenomenon.
In order for this to work though, there has to be full disclosure of bias from those involved—i.e., "there are my assumptions and this is where I'm coming from…" And while people will tend to agree on certain core fundamentals (though not always), no two individuals will share the exact same approach—everybody's assumptions and interpretations tend to vary. Hence the importance of being forthright about this.
And while practitioners will tend to congregate towards some paradigms more than others, there have to be good epistemic reasons for doing so—i.e., it has to be a falsifiable model that's withstood empirical scrutiny. Saying, "it's Aushra's theory so therefore we must accept it," isn't a good reason (it's an appeal to authority fallacy). That'd be something like saying, "we gotta follow General Relativity, because it's Einstein's."
Further, simply getting everyone to nominally rally around a given paradigm, would actually be a disservice to the whole disclosure of bias thing. So flaunting 'Aushra Model A' (or Classical Socionics) as the "stable version 1.0" standard, would be a bad idea. You'd just end up with a lot of people claiming this as their modus operandi, while in actual fact they're practicing god knows what.
Psychology is a difficult field because about as close to proof as you can get is "a strong correlation", so theories evolve much more slowly because at all times they remain theories. I disagree with standardizing being an overly negative thing, they have essentially already done it I mean it's called Model A or Classical Socionics, they have drawn a line in the sand to a degree which I think is good and allows us to actually get some use out of the theory.
Standardizing could slow down progress but again relating to the software world at some point you need to release you can't keep adding features for ever. If everything goes like it should a variation of socionics will draw it's line in the sand and if it's "better" people will be drawn to it and it will become the new standard.
At the end of the day socionics is a framework for typing and relationships it goes beyond the purely theoretical and has some very practical and direct uses. But in order to actually use it you need consistent definitions.
It is not the relativist fallacy, it would have been only if he were saying that they are both true even if they contradict themselves. In fact you're committing it, since your stance claims that two theories, which are not fully compatible, should be both considered true, and the contradictions between them should be denied.Relativist fallacy.
This is a reification. You make the assumption that the functions themselves are material and all the authors necessarily talk about the exactly same thing. As if you know in advance what these causes are.
There are no eight functions in Jung, but four functions and two attitudes. This is a large subject that was discussed before. Just looking at the attitudes, while Rationality/Irrationality is close in understanding in the two systems, Extroversion/Introversion is different and Aushra asserted that the understanding of Jung is incorrect.
---
Take a look at how the understanding of electromagnetism evolved. At first, light, electricity and magnetism were considered different forces, it was discovered later that they are not. They can't be both true at the same time.
That's explained by him being a consequentialist and conservative, plus probably S.
I remember in an interview years back, Jim Lehrer excoriated Donald Rumsfeld for failing to offer new ideas about how to deal with the Iraqi insurgency. Granted Rumsfeld is LII, but generally conservatives and novelty do not mix.
I can't remember the last time I've seen such a solid Te response on this forum
...........................
In terms of Breivik, from The Ineffable's quotes from his manifesto I'm leaning towards LSI (not because he did something insanely cruel, but because his motives for doing so)
This sounds to me like Ni/Se using the ends to justify the meansQ: Can significant indirect damage against civilians be justified?
A: Yes and no. It can be justified in the sense that it is the only pragmatical way to move forward. When someone blows up a government building it is obviously not with the intention to kill the cleaning lady or the janitor. The target has been selected after careful consideration because it will yield the wanted results.
There are extreme and moderate forces. We are all cultural conservatives even though we use different means. We have taken it upon ourselves to use brute, cynical force so other people don’t have to. The other political fronts should welcome it as a necessary evil in order to rid ourselves of a much greater evil.
This is basically how I see Ne PoLR, Ni HA, Se creative, work; a neurotic over focusing on the horrible things that could occur and dealing with it by obsessing over a way to prevent those scenarios from occurring by force. (I wrote about this in LSI here)Innocent people will die, in the thousands. But it is still better than the alternative; millions of dead Europeans, which is the worst case phase 3 scenario.
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
She doesn't understaynd. What u gonna do about it.No, that's just him being typically ESTj and preaching for things to be done 'by the book', instead of actually thinking.I can't remember the last time I've seen such a solid Te response on this forum
My guess is LSI.
That's anything but relativism, so to speak. Relativism denies the logical principle of contradiction. Socionics - and perhaps most such systems - have a degree of consistency in itself. Its principles forbid one to confuse it for another, especially Jung's system which was corrected on purpose.
Being a pseudoscience doesn't allow one confuse it for something else. Hypotheses that claim that humans come from creation of (a) god(s), evolution, aliens - are all different. I wouldn't even call relativism the opinion that they're all the same, even when they're striving for the same thing, but utter stupidity.
That's a necessary consequence of your statements.
I remind you that we talk about Socionics here, therefore I assume you do the same.If you're going to relativize everything re: Socionics solely to Aushra, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that Socionics is hokum. In all seriousness, you people treat this shit like a cult doctrine and you should be ashamed of yourselves. "We should only follow what prophet Aushra says! Burn the heretics who say otherwise!"
The early works of Aushra and the other early socionists are our bench. Any later "work" that comes in contradiction with it falls short of Socionics. This doesn't mean refinments, additions and corrections are not allowed, but they must have justified reasons while not denying the fundamentals.
I repeat that I read Jung. This is the second time you make this false claim about me. The third time I will report you, no offense, but you're being really dishonest and annoying.
Of course that's not necessarily true, dude. Everyone believes what he/she thinks it's true. You're free to pick everything from where Jung has left, make your own system, borrow from Socionics and MBTI whatever you like. Just don't claim it is Socionics what is not.
I think this is a great difference between you and most people who discuss here, you pretend that a lot of your claims are Socionics when they're not, especially those concepts that were officially refuted. You also don't make use of technical rigor, instead of explaining your beliefs and addressing the contrary arguments, you often just make appeal to an arsenal of fallacious methods, including - but not limited to - arguments from repetition and loads of red herrings [1]. If you think I'm accusing you for no reason, please clarify, just make sure you read the note below first.
---
[1] - examples: ad-hominems against users, ridicule, straw man (ie calling rigorous users "fanatics" or "cultists" and many other misrepresentations of one's position), appeal to authority/accomplishment and tradition (ie Jung's celebrity), genetic fallacy (historical relationships between systems, usage of terms with an unqualified historical meaning - etymological fallacy) and many other sorts of irrelevant appeals, like justifying with "it's a pseudoscience, anyway" as you please.
LSIs are evil and LSI is an insult around here.
Less thinking more doing
I'm going to deposit that it is entirely appropriate to type this individual; he isn't insane, infact clinically calculating based upon observations in his surrounding environment. On that basis he certainly has Te in his ego block.
He operated on the boundaries of society seeking out new idea plateaus routinely rejecting the social connections and therefore on that basis I'm inclined to theorise he also has Ni in his ego block.
What has priority I have no idea.
That could easily be a combination of any sensing and thinking functions, aswell.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
He was your patient, wasn't he ?
Ah yes, if one isn't insane, then one definitely has Te in ego block. That's a nice theory, thank you.On that basis he certainly has Te in his ego block.
Those are not new ideas, where the heck did you get that from ?He operated on the boundaries of society seeking out new idea plateaus routinely rejecting the social connections and therefore on that basis I'm inclined to theorise he also has Ni in his ego block.
Not really. The perspective direction/attitude of thinking is important here. Sensing, well you'll work that out eventually when you delve into the history of the individual.That could easily be a combination of any sensing and thinking functions, aswell.
a) So what?
b) Nope, that is not what I said. I also have Te in ego block and Fi in my Id. That doesn't mean I rule it out when considering its unsavoury aspects.
c) If these are not new ideas then it should be clear where I got it from: Theory.
I don't see your point, the situation is much less clearer than you make it to be.Not really. The perspective direction/attitude of thinking is important here. Sensing, well you'll work that out eventually.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Just because there is ambiguity does not rule out using the available information to draw preliminary conclusions, clearly I'm not an expert on the individual but I have been reading a bit on him.I don't see your point, the situation is much less clearer than you make it to be.
I can't remember the last time I've seen such a solid Te response on this forum
Wow pretty big accusation to make based on me wanting a practical way to practice socionics. Apparently if we don't live in a fantasy world where definitions change every day and everyone just gets it and it all works we are creating red tape.
What you're trying to say is that it's alright to make up your own definitions basically changing the system and fitting those results into the existing system.
No matter what way you look at it this is fundamentally wrong, it's completely impractical, no matter how "accurate" your definitions are all you are doing is diluting the usefulness of an existing system by adding erroneous data.
If you think the system is broken make a new one, or create a variation and give it a name. If your talking Model A then use the existing definitions, this is not rocket science.
I like the idea of making typology more "accurate" but do it without breaking whats already working.
Does socionics owe me a living ? Oh yes, it does
No, it's alright, I like this theoryb) Nope, that is not what I said. I also have Te in ego block and Fi in my Id. That doesn't mean I rule it out when considering its unsavoury aspects.
This is where our ways part for calling something that was thought and outlined before by somebody is not theory. Anyhow, stealing from one is plagiarism, but stealing from many is research.c) If these are not new ideas then it should be clear where I got it from: Theory.
Hey, let's lump the world's problems on one type!No, that's just him being typically ESTj and preaching for things to be done 'by the book', instead of actually thinking. This is why LSEs live religiously by standard operating procedure manuals, and are basically responsible for 98% of bureaucratic largesse and senseless red tape that makes the rest of humanity miserable.I can't remember the last time I've seen such a solid Te response on this forum
Besides, there's nothing "practical" about being consistent for the sake of consistency—as opposed to being accurate. You could be consistently wrong; where would be the practicality in that?Fucking dumbass.
Seriously though this is actually directly contrary to my experience with LSEs. My mom is a blatant LSE and she has never been a "by-the-book" person, and she hates people who are like that. The people you're referring to are probably so-first E1s, E3s, and E6s of varying Socionics types; I would guess they are mostly rational though.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I understand that you are annoyed by this:
You shouldn't be.I can't remember the last time I've seen such a solid Te response on this forum
What you can do is present one of two things which you have not:Does socionics owe me a living ? Oh yes, it does
No, it's alright, I like this theory
This is where our ways part for calling something that was thought and outlined before by somebody is not theory. Anyhow, stealing from one is plagiarism, but stealing from many is research.
a) Alternate theory.
b) Alternate evidence.
The surrounding details are you have decided to show are irrelevant, and for the better part, contradictory.
You are clearly an intelligent man and therefore I am sure that you can provide a relevant and thorough analysis which will reach a relevant conclusion to rebuke me.
He loves me.
I told you this already. One place is here (there are probably others):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...463#post730463
Since then, you made the accusation for two times (at least, again), once above and once here:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...948#post775948
Now, in order to put an end to this cat-and-mouse game: I read Psychological Types.
---
The big problem - and misrepresentation of yours again -, which one should not leave unnoted, is the claim that one needs to read the book in order to tell what is consistent with Socionics and what is not. That is a false claim, and by no mean I'm acknowledging the condition you attempt to impose, although I actually read the book for my personal knowledge and interest. This is a subversion from the actual premises, since they may have been different, not coming from Jung, but from any other source, still being contrary to the theory of Socionics. Even more so, the founders of this system rejected Jung's Object/Subject dichotomy and several other things from his theory, you can take it or leave it, but it's still an undeniable fact.
One more time: http://translate.google.com/translat...t.html&prev=_t ("Erroneous hypothesis Young"). If you still can't memorize these things, we may ask the administration to create a sticky thread where all these fundamentals are put in a visible place. That is actually preferable, we may ask for help from the Russian-speaking guys for a better translation, from which everyone can benefit in the future.
Correct reasoning, argumentation.
All you said was flatly denying and accusing people ad-hominem. That I haven't read PT, that me, Marie and whoever are religious, that Jung was never refuted by socionists, etc.
If you have any objection just point precisely at each fallacy you haven't made and assume responsibility for your claim. Otherwise, I don't need to justify further.
Except that you don't limit yourself to it. Nowhere in my statement that you answered with it have I mentioned anything about the validity of Socionics. That is, it's an irrelevant counter-argument and a red herring since I haven't denied that Socionics is a pseudoscience, neither my point was based upon such assumption.
Haha, eh what ? You're, like, 2.000.000% sure this is for me, I mean, it's like giving me flowers and I don't know whom shall I thank very nicely.I understand that you are annoyed by this:
You shouldn't be.I can't remember the last time I've seen such a solid Te response on this forum
How about alternate universum and proof I'm actually a spy hailing from the depths of hell.What you can do is present one of two things which you have not:
a) Alternate theory.
b) Alternate evidence.
I don't do theories, theories do me, thus point "a" is out of question and my jurisdiction. What shall I do with theories, anyway. Ashton is your man, he deals with theories and is a terrorist. Yes, it is proper spelling.
As for point "b", heck mate, you don't have to look far, it's all in this thread. leckysupport posted it, then TheInffetible posted it. That this guy snatched portions of text and published it as his own was no mystery to me.
How long are you in Scotland ?The surrounding details are you have decided to show are irrelevant, and for the better part, contradictory.
I didn't present any details, I see no point in presenting these. You're his [Breivik's] therapist so bring out the big guns.
Lemme get this straight, yes you've heard right, straight. You're telling me this guy is ILI ? Sounds great, I mean, don't get me wrong but Gamma needs all the terrorists it can get.You are clearly an intelligent man and therefore I am sure that you can provide a relevant and thorough analysis which will reach a relevant conclusion to rebuke me.
My point is, you're the only one saying he is Gamma, in other words, the burden of proof is on you.
And remember, the only good supervisor is a dead supervisor
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
